State Climate Strategy Hits a Sustainability Snag
Is AB-32 sustainable? The state’s Legislative Analyst seems to think it’s a valid question.
A series of reports from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (California’s version of the federal GAO) casts doubt on the long-term viability of the nation’s most ambitious attack on climate change.
Just as the Governor was tuning up for his Climate Summit last week, the LAO released a report questioning the economics of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, aka AB-32. The report assails the assumptions and projections made by the Air Resources Board, in estimating the effect of AB-32’s implementation on the state’s economy. The board's "scoping plan" projects net annual savings of $16 billion.
Among the LAO's conclusions:
- The [ARB] plan’s evaluation of the costs and savings of some recommended measures is inconsistent and incomplete. The plan does not reflect the costs and savings of all of the emissions reduction measures that it recommends.
- Macroeconomic modeling results show a slight net economic benefit to the plan, but ARB failed to demonstrate the analytical rigor of its findings. Despite its findings—slight, eventual overall benefit to the economy—the macroeconomic analysis conducted by ARB provides little insight.
- The findings are highly dependent upon key assumptions, and ARB has not performed an analysis to determine how sensitive the macroeconomic findings are to changes in the key assumptions.
- The plan fails to lay out an “investment pathway.” Despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.
The LAO found that the lion’s share of the economic benefit from AB-32 is presumed to spring from one emissions control measure, that’s actually part of a separate law (AB 1493, passed in 2002). According to the analysis, implementation of the “Pavley regulations” would account for 18% of the greenhouse gas reductions and 70% of savings and benefits attributed to AB-32 in the air board’s scoping plan. That plan is likely scheduled for formal sign-off by the board in the next few weeks.
The report was not widely distributed but was contained in a letter to Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Sacramento), who requested the analysis.
All the angst over economic impact of AB-32 may be moot, given the findings of another recent LAO study, which warned that we may not be able to put the darn thing into effect, anyway. The state is presently keeping the program alive by borrowing tens of millions of dollars from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The LAO says the Schwarzenegger administration “has failed to produce a sustainable, long-term funding plan for AB-32 implementation.”
When Mitigation Falls Short, Adapt
While California has plans in place to reduce greenhouse gases, to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is only recently that the local governments have begun thinking about adaptation strategies, according to two reports released today by the PPIC. "Preparing California for a Changing Climate" and "Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California's Cities and Counties." Both focus on what is being done currently to confront climate change and where the state and municipalities need to focus adaptation efforts, in order to prepare for future environmental changes.
According to Ellen Hanak, who co-authored both studies, while three out of four California's communities are "doing something" related to climate change, only half of that group is looking into adaptation strategies and developing plans for protecting community assets.
"The focus has been on bringing greenhouse gases down," said Hanak. "Only recently have folks been looking into climate impacts."
Adaptation is a critical element because even if the world does reduce emissions significantly, Californians still may face problems like sea level rise, increased wildfires and flooding, public health issues related to air quality and increased temperatures because of change that has already been set in motion. The extent of these problems, of course, will depend on how successful we are with mitigation strategies. The less successful we are at reducing greenhouse gases, the better we need to be at adapting to change.
Hanak sees the executive order issued by the Governor on Friday requiring state agencies to assess and plan for sea level rise due to climate change, which we blogged last week, as one positive step in this direction. Because the order mandates an assessment of projected sea level rise, local governments will soon have a benchmark to use for planning their adaptation strategies.
Obama Steals the Show
It was one of those rare occasions when a video gets a standing ovation.
But President-elect Barack Obama's video greeting to 800-plus attendees at the Governors' Climate Summit in LA had quite a few of them on their feet.
Obama lauded the conference and promised that once he takes office, "Any Governor who works toward clean energy will have a partner in the White House." So, he said, would any company working to develop clean energy, projecting that five million new "green jobs" will be created in the process.
While he did not say anything he hasn't said before, Obama bundled most of his previously articulated thoughts on climate response into his brief video comments. He restated his commitment to a federal cap-and-trade program that would help return U.S.-based greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with an 80% reduction by 2050.
Obama again left the door open to an expansion of nuclear power, saying that the nation would "tap" it, "while making sure it's safe."
Referring to the ongoing UN climate talks, the President-elect got one of his biggest ovations when he said "You can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change."
"Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response," he said.
The first panel discussion of the two-day summit involved the problem of tallying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Representatives of Mexico and China pledged renewed efforts on that front.
Watch the video greeting below.
Climate Summit Set to Start as L.A. Smolders
The Governors' Climate Summit convenes Tuesday against the poignant–and salient–backdrop of the multiple wildfires and smoldering ruins ringing Los Angeles.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is hosting the somewhat hastily arranged conference, which is "co-hosted" by the governors of four other U.S. states; Florida, Illinois, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Governors of four other states have pledged to send delegates. Two of these states, Utah and Washington, are already partners with California in the Western Climate Initiative, which recently rolled out a framework for its regional cap & trade program, set to take effect in 2012.
Governor Schwarzenegger said in September that "all 50″ US governors would be invited. Sacramento-based AP writer Samantha Young documented invitations to at least 36 governors.
Those who made it are joined by representatives from a dozen other nations, including Mexico, Brazil and importantly, China and India. These last two are linchpins in the success of any concerted effort to control emissions of greenhouse gases. Brazil can make a major contribution in the preservation of tropical forests. And Mexico–well, they're right next door. And annoyingly, GHG emissions tend to flout international borders. It's been estimated that on certain days, a quarter of L.A.'s air pollution can be traced to China, though today was certainly not one of them. The odor of smoke from surrounding wildfires followed me down I-5 from Castaic, into the L.A. Basin.
Tuesday's summit agenda is dominated by breakout sessions devoted to specific sectors and topics, such as energy, transportation and cement manufacturing. Discussions will include representatives of diverse interests, from The Nature Conservancy to Wal-Mart. By Wednesday organizers expect delegates to sign a "joint declaration agreeing to pursue collaborative action to reduce greenhouse gas emission and create opportunities to grow green economies."
I'll be following the proceedings and blogging daily from them.
Governor Orders Plan for Rising Seas
Governor Schwarzenegger today issued an executive order (S-13-08) requiring state agencies to assess and plan for rising sea levels caused by climate change.
The order instructs the California Resources Agency, Dept. of Water Resources, Energy Commission and others to come up with a game plan for coping with the risk of encroaching sea water in coastal areas, and gives them two months to convene an "independent panel" to study the problem and make recommendations.
According to the Governor's order:
"California's water supply and coastal resources, including valuable natural habitat areas, are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise over the next century and could suffer devastating consequences if adaptive measures are not taken…"
The nation's oldest continuously operating sea level gauge, located at Fort Point in San Francisco, logged a seven-inch rise during the last century. Current projections, which combine data from traditional ground-based meters with satellite telemetry, project that with a lax response to climate change, the Pacific could rise three times that much this century.
The order goes out three days before Schwarzenegger hosts a Governors' Climate Summit in Beverly Hills.
The Cost of Sloth
The changing climate could cost Californians “tens of billions of dollars a year.”
Those are just the direct costs, toted up in a new report by economists at U-C Berkeley.
“California Climate: Risk and Response” is billed as the first comprehensive report on the costs that may be inflicted on California from the effects of climate change. The 127-page report was co-authored by Fredrich Kahl and David Roland-Holst of Berkeley's Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability (part of the Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics).
Higher energy demand, heat waves, scarce water, wildfire and rising sea levels–even the "collapse" of the state's half-billion-dollar ski industry–are just some of the potential cost drivers. The “good news,” according to the report, is that much of this cost could be avoided by immediate investment in strategies to prepare.
A key question is where the money will come from—especially in tough economic times—to invest in the energy and other infrastructure needed to stave off the worst damage. Skip Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says we’re not necessarily talking about finding “new” money for these investments. "In the US economy," says Laitner, "we’re looking at almost two trillion dollars of investment anyway, regardless of how tight the market is. The point I think is a smart re-deployment of investment to more productive uses."
That includes rapid development of renewable energy and measures to use water more efficiently. The study was funded by the nonpartisan think tank known as Next 10 and is just the latest in a repeating chorus of studies making the point that a full-on confrontation with climate change will, in the long run, be good for the economy, and may even provide some near-term stimulus.
Just weeks ago, Roland-Holst unveiled a separate study on the potential for job creation from promoting conservation and a shift to renewable energy. Earlier this week, a Cal State Fullerton study put a $28 billion-dollar current price tag on air pollution in the south coast and San Joaquin Valley regions.
Roland-Holst will be one of the guests on KQED's Forum program tomorrow (Friday). He'll be joined by representatives from Next 10 and Environment California, in a robust discussion of the cost of climate change.
Seizing the Moment
All the hand-wringing about seized-up capital markets hasn’t stopped environmental visionaries from promoting their scenarios for a clean, green–and robust–economy. Indeed, many have seized the moment to suggest that an all-out attack on climate change and pollution could be just what the doctor ordered.
They’re being egged on by the President-elect, who offered this nugget in a recent pre-election interview with Time magazine:
"…we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation."
That’s a whopping assumption. Nevertheless the advocacy group Environment California has released its own vision, asserting that clean energy is “the foundation of America’s economic future." The group’s Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Environmental Protection Through Clean Energy Solutions is not groundbreaking but rather an aggregation of ideas and studies that have been put forth already, leading to the same general conclusion.
The report attempts to bundle the potential of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, coupled with aggressive conservation measures, which it says could alone cut the nation’s electric use by a quarter.
For example, Environment California suggests that we might set aside 9% of Nevada (that’s about 10,000 square miles–imagine Massachusetts covered border-to-border with solar panels) for solar-thermal installations or harness the wind potential of five interior states (the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana and Texas), either one could cover the nation’s entire electric bill. Of course, either of these approaches would require massive, intrusive distribution networks to get the power where it’s needed, so I these ideas may be intended as inspirational, not literal.
Another idea, which requires very little distribution infrastructure, is carpeting the nation’s rooftops with photovoltaic solar panels. The group says that would provide about 70% of our energy needs.
The report also advocates for cutting our oil consumption in half, though it does not specify by when.
How does all this translate to economic redemption? By creating “millions of jobs.” According to the report:
"…repowering America will plant the seeds of economic growth and revitalization across the country. And by creating the world’s largest market for renewable energy and energy efficient technology, we will give American companies a leg up in the most important economic competition of the 21st century – the race to supply environmentally sound technologies to the rest of the world."
The report cites several studies to support this conclusion. Some were done several years ago and may contain assumptions that don’t quite hold up in today’s recessionary, capital-constrained environment. The more recent work includes a University of Tennessee study from 2006, which projected that converting a quarter of U.S. electric production and transportation fuels would, over about 20 years, yield more than five million jobs.
You are guaranteed to hear a great deal more on this theme, as a new administration takes charge with it’s "number one priority." Still unanswered is who will provide the capital–and the incentives to steer capital–into the clean, green economy of our dreams.
Photo: Installing solar panels on the roof at KQED.
A Long Trek to a Shrinking Glacier
The glaciers in the Sierra Nevada are melting fast, and I really wanted to see one before it was too late. Earlier this fall, I got my wish. Reporter Sasha Khokha and I were lucky enough to travel to Yosemite and tag along with geographer Hassan Basagic on his trek to photograph the Dana Glacier as part of his research documenting the retreat of the Sierra glaciers.
The hike to Dana Glacier was stunning. We parked the car just outside Yosemite's Tioga Pass Gate, which is at close to 10,000 feet in elevation, and began bushwhacking almost immediately. We climbed to the base of the glacier traveling through soft green meadows, up and over mountains of multi-colored boulders, and along the edges of electric blue and green alpine lakes. Not one cloud passed over our heads all day long.
While the climb was memorable for its beauty, what made the day truly outstanding was having a guide explaining the landscape around us each step of the way. Since 2003, Basagic has been tracking the changes in the glaciers of the Sierra using historic photographs. His research contains comparison photographs of several other Sierra glaciers, including the Lyell and Maclure glaciers.
Californians are thinking more than ever about water, snow pack, and our glaciers due in part to a couple of dry years and two pretty severe fire seasons. In October, Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee wrote an interesting piece about his trek to the Lyell Glacier with a team of scientists. Knudson and team found that like Dana, the Lyell Glacier has shrunk dramatically since 1883.
While the hike to Dana was spectacular, the glacier itself appeared less than majestic. It looked vulnerable, clinging to the side of a massive bowl, a remnant of the sea of ice that once filled the entire valley. It looked so small and fragile that I was not surprised when Yosemite geologist Greg Stock told us in an interview the next day that it's likely the Dana Glacier will be gone in the next 25-50 years.
Check out the videos and audio slidehow of our journey to the Dana Glacier.
It's Not All Downhill
Some of the most rewarding parts of my job covering the Central Valley are the stories I discover in Yosemite, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and other parts of the Sierra. I've reported wearing snowshoes, sitting in a canoe, and perched in a Search and Rescue helicopter. So when the Climate Watch team asked me to tackle climbing to a glacier, I was thrilled.
The Dana Glacier is one of the most accessible in the Sierra, but the hike turned out to be a grueling journey. I was recovering from the stomach flu, and had to muster enough strength to scramble up miles of unsteady rock. There was no clear trail. I was never sure whether to plant my weight on the small boulders which sometimes tipped back and forth under my feet. I fell several times, and eventually decided to put away my microphone. Our trek (including stops to photograph and interview) took us about nine hours.
The air grew thinner as we climbed past 11,000 feet. In fact, you can hear my heavy breathing in the radio story about the journey. What you can't hear is the screaming headache I developed when we reached the glacier.
We were dehydrated because the sun was intense, and we didn't bring enough water. Producer Gretchen Weber and I were so worried about carrying all of our microphones and cameras up the steep bedrock that we only brought a few bottles. And there were few refilling opportunities in this parched moonscape.
But the journey was spectacular. Glacial "flour," or fine silt from the moraine, colors the lakes below Dana almost tropical blue. They look like the Hawaiian ocean, but feel icy to the touch. Seeing withering Dana Glacier reflected in that water was magnificent.
On the way down, I badly bruised my toenails from banging them against my hiking boots. Three of my toenails fell off, and I had to wear a prosthetic one on my big toe to my wedding a few weeks later! When the fake fell off at the wedding, friends and family scoured the grass to find the missing toenail. That makes my hike to the Dana Glacier something I'll remember forever.
Check out the video and audio slideshow of the journey.
Punting the Issue
When California creates a cap and trade system to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, as it is planning to do, there's going to be the question of what to do with the revenue. Actually, first there's the question of if there will be any revenue, as Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told a roomful of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and green tech leaders this week at the offices of fuel cell innovator Bloom Energy.
California's cap and trade planning is tied to the Western Climate Initiative, but the consortium is leaving the decisions about how to dispense credits up to each state.
Nichols said that those who would be buyers in the potential cap and trade system are "very resistant" to the idea of an auction. Not exactly surpising.
But many clean energy innovators see the revenue from a cap and trade auction as the perfect opportunity to help new green technologies survive the tenuous period between venture capital funding and commericial viability. Funds from a cap and trade auction could help mitigate the risk private companies take on to develop the innovations that will be needed for a greener future.
Nichols admitted that how much of the credits to auction and where the money should go is the most controversial issue around AB 32. She cited the "cap and dividend" option, a scenario in which all the revenue would go "right back to the public, like in Alaska," as a politically popular option. She also mentioned using the funds to reduce corporate taxes.
Bloom Energy CEO KR Srindhar likened the "cap and dividend" option to "giving people a fish" (I can only assume as a reference to the old adage about how teaching someone how to fish is better than giving him a fish).
"In the early stages, if we [California] want to be a leader in this field, we need to be seeding it to create jobs. When we do, then, month after month, they'll be getting that dividend," Srindhar told Nichols, asserting that money invested in green tech would pay off in the form of job creation and a better economy.
Nichols reponded by saying that she was "thinking about punting the issue for awhile."
As we have blogged before, CARB is tasked with implementing AB 32, which requires that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
According to rumors, Nichols may be influencing more than just California's climate policy soon. Unnamed sources in recent reports have cited her as a potential Obama pick for EPA head in the new administration.
-
RSS FEED
Subscribe to our blog feed and you'll never miss a post!